November 16, 2011

The bill proposes fines of 3,000 to 5,000 rubles ($100 to $160) for individuals and up to 50,000 rubles for organizations engaged in "public activities to promote sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism and transsexuality" that might be observed by children...

"The rising popularity of sexual deviations influences our children in a negative way," said the bill's author, Vitaly Milonov, a United Russia deputy, Fontanka.ru reported.

Another deputy, Yelena Babich of the Liberal Democrat Party, denounced even the rainbow-colored decorations that covered St. Petersburg during its City Day celebrations in May as gay propaganda....

"The bill is passed before elections to boost the popularity of United Russia, which is flagging in St. Petersburg," [said Igor Kochetkov, head of LGBT group Vykhod.] "This bill smacks of the Middle Ages."...

The Constitution allows for the balance of interests in society, limiting rights of a social group if it infringes on the rights of another social group, [said Dmitry Shubin, of the law firm Yustina]. This means that rights of the LGBT community can be limited in favor of those who are not gay, who are in the majority....

Still, the bill is "cleverly worded" because it only bans propaganda of LGBT behavior, not the behavior itself, and because it includes both gay relationships and pedophilia, putting them on the same level in the eyes of the public, Shubin said.

It does raise a question. What part of the gay propaganda effort to "educate the public" that homosexuality is not only 'normal' but a wonderful, fabulous, exciting lifestyle - is aimed at recruitment?Without US freedom of speech...other nations are left to consider banning propaganda they consider harmful to society.Even in the US, we have laws and agreed-on conventions banning propaganda that illegal drug use is a wonderful, fabulous, exciting lifestyle choice to avoid enticing children.Same in America with ads, movies, public displays that promote alcohol and tobacco use for kids.

Remember the laws restricting speech on radio and TV, plus images on TV?

The difference, obviously, is that the government says that it owns the bandwidth for AM and FM radio and licenses it out. Admittedly, the licensing with cable television is murkier to me but the FCC claims authority.

Still, censorship is extremely limited even under the licensing regime and I am quite certain that there is no law against showing drug use in a favorable light outside of those licensed forums. Cheech and Chong made movies, did they not?

the government says that it owns the bandwidth for AM and FM radio and licenses it out.

Which is kind of interesting to me. I can understand the need for a governing body to manage frequencies and such, but content? Plus, the capacity for "radio" on other wave lengths/forms is almost limitless now.

Does that make the laws okay, Ed? How about miscegenation laws? You like those, too?

I didn't know miscegenation covered homosexuality. Seven seems to be saying it does.

It's interesting that, in some cities, nudity and open sex are permitted for homosexuals, but not heterosexuals. Mainly because people realize it's a bad idea, but the politicians are too wedded to the homosexual vote to actually challenge them on it.

I'm sure Seven thinks that's just swell, though.

Playing the professional sophist always seems to lead him into taking the most idiotic positions on things.

It's interesting that, in some cities, nudity and open sex are permitted for homosexuals, but not heterosexuals.

It's really not that interesting at all if you have any understanding whatsoever of the long-established line of cases covering the issue.

For those of us who are proscribed from that sort of thing, it comes across as weird.

But, to end this, no one is banning homosexual relationships. But they understand that, while Mommy and Daddy holding hands and exchanging a peck on the cheek is natural, seeing Adam and Steve do is odd for most people.

And Mommy and Daddy aren't allowed to do much more than hold hands in public, either. They don't seem to object.

The fascism quip wasn't simply a slur. Weimar Germany had a lot of openly gay people. A lot of people got very anxious that the German race was in decline. Deviance, not just sexual deviance, makes many people nervous.

Gays, Jews, and the disabled are canaries in the coal mine. When any of those groups is persecuted there is something wrong with a society.

Druge now has the fake homoerotic photos of Obama up. I don't like Obama much, but casting him as gay, as a vehicle to glorify and promote "unhate" and love all things PC and gay - is repugnantly disrespectful of the man and the office.

Would they run a fake photo of a gay Icon like Ellen Degeneres in an intimate embrace with a man? Doubt it! The gay propagandists would scream how "bigoted and offensive" that would be.

Maguro and Rev -- That makes sense, and further backs up my central claim that there is no law about obscenity on television beyond licensed AM, FM, and broadcast television.

I would add one thing: localities could probably attempt to ban certain channels in their area. So channels would have to deal with advertisers, angry moralists, and rural county governments. I don't know how successful those localities would be for a number of reasons.

Ed -- Upon further reading, please cite for us the cities where nudity and open sex are permitted for homosexuals, but not heterosexuals. I am extremely interested to know where officials define obscenity that way. If you could also cite the ordinance, that would fantastic.

Druge now has the fake homoerotic photos of Obama up. I don't like Obama much, but casting him as gay, as a vehicle to glorify and promote "unhate" and love all things PC and gay - is repugnantly disrespectful of the man and the office.

There's a de facto situation in many, many places in the United States where you can't show public affection if you are gay. You may rest assured that miscegenation is de facto prohibited in a few choice locales, and where black people don't go, and where white people don't go.

You have to consider the context of such de facto permissive situations-- i.e. a carnivalesque event. It takes place in a delimited time & space. You know what you're getting at an event like that. You don't see any children at Folsom.

New Orleans's Mardi Gras is another example-- and that's more hetero than homo (I think, don't know, never been). Probably more children present, too.

It is principally due to dreams of physical and material instant gratification, while simultaneously rejecting, ignoring, or marginalizing the natural order.

There are numerous voluntary behaviors, including the homosexual behavior, which do not positively contribute to the fitness of our species. While it is likely that some deviant (e.g. unproductive) behaviors can be tolerated, especially between consenting adults, there is no legitimate reason to normalize them.

Russians just want to have fun! Unfortunately, their opportunity to enjoy and live off the fruits of past labor is limited. Their elites must recognize the decay that has followed with unbridled liberty.

They had a choice between moral and natural knowledge, and totalitarian policies. Since they demonstrated a progressive inability to comprehend or accept the former, the latter has been imposed to moderate their behavior.

It's fun watching the self-styled sophisticates trying to show how enlightened they are when it's clear their high dudgeon wouldn't exist if the Democrats hadn't decided to pander to the urban homosexual vote.

My point was merely to counter what you seemed to be implying: that, as Seven put it, "heterosexuals cannot be nude or have open sex at a certain event in San Francisco" when & where homosexuals are permitted to.

That it's a "freakish" event-- or what I called "carnivalesque"-- is part of what make such an exception or suspension of law de facto possible.

No, those are the ones against it. Thinking is for people of consequence, the others just take the knee-jerk position.

This statement is amusing for two reasons. One - Edutcher is criticizing people who take knee-jerk positions. Two - Edutcher is acting as though he has any firsthand knowledge about what people of consequence say, think or do.

Nobody except demographers really gives a shit about the society-wide birth rate. What individual organisms all species are programmed to care about above all else is the propagation of their own genes. That's axiomatic.

It follows that selection favors people who care about having kids, grandkids, etc. It also follows that people will try to shield their kids from any factors that will reduce the transmission probability of their genes.

If homosexuality is to some degree (note to absolutists: that does not say solely) a matter of behavioral choice, then parents will want to shelter their kids from factors they believe may increase the likelihood that they'll become homosexual. This does not mean that those parents hate, or even disapprove of, gays who are not in their immediate genetic line. Neither does it mean that those parents won't love a son or daughter who is gay. It does mean that they'll be more bothered by extreme behavior at a gay-pride event than at Mardi Gras for reasons that can't logically be called hypocritical.

I'm aware of reasonably sound evidence that there are both congenital and discretionary aspects of sexual orientation. So while homosexuality is therefore "natural" in the sense that there would be some incidence of it without any social influences, it is also likely that its incidence will be higher when it is fully mainstreamed in a society. This, I believe, is what gives rise to heteros' unease with the complete removal of any social norms favoring heterosexuality. I certainly think it's why heteros who are generally in favor of individual freedom can still have a hard time with the gay-marriage issue.

It ought to be possible to hash these kinds of issues out without attributing ill-will or hatred to either side.

I think there is a strong, strong correlation between socialist and totalitarian government and lack of having children. It could be overt -- like China, now -- or it could be something that just seems to occur, like in Russia and all over Western Europe.

What causes that correlation when there aren't laws forcing people to limit reproduction? Well, that's an interesting question for all sorts of reasons.

What causes that correlation when there aren't laws forcing people to limit reproduction?

I can offer two possible explanations, one for communism and one for welfare-state socialism.

Birth rates tend to fall when people's economic situation worsens. This happened during the Great Depression in the US. It's easy to imagine that the same logic applies to the bleak prospects under a communist regime.

The modern welfare state works in a very different way. Whereas without social security and medicare people would have to rely heavily on their adult children to provide a "safety net", the welfare state eliminates this dependency. So the potential direct, individual economic benefit of raising children falls, while the costs stay about the same. Result: lower birth rates.

Chip -- That second explanation doesn't work for me. It strikes me as the theory about Americans preferring divided government always has: nice theory, but individual people don't actually think that way in enough mass to affect the overall result. I just don't think people are so rational. I believe in the passions.

P.S. -- I also think there is a strong correlation between traditionally religious people of any god or gods and having children. Socialist and totalitarian governments have tended to be anti-religion or, at best, not interested in fostering religion -- traditional religion.

7M--I realize that explanations that seem to require hyper-rationality often seem sketchy. But consider some additional data: average family sizes for farm households vs. urban households. On the farm, kids can be economically productive at an early age. In the city, they're pretty much all-cost, no-revenue. Rational-choice theory tells us that farm families are bigger than city families on average, and the data back that up.

Chip -- That I agree with. Makes all the sense in the world. I have two children and my wife and I would have more but the costs and space issues make it untenable (according to our calculus).

But that's people thinking in the now and the near future. The part I don't agree with is the part about people relying on their adult children for dependency. I just don't think any people are thinking 40 years into the future like that. I'm certainly not.

I just don't think any people are thinking 40 years into the future like that. I'm certainly not.

I understand your objection, and respect it. I would certainly not press the point to where I'd claim that there'd be an immediate effect of, say, social security on birth rates. I have in mind something that probably takes a generation to play out.

I think it only takes "cautionary tales" to work over the long run. In the pre-social-security days, people would see that old folks who had small numbers of children made up a disproportionate share of the sad cases they knew or heard about. People would internalize the notion that they shouldn't rely on a secure old age without a "diverse portfolio" of offspring to lean on. (Disclaimer: Clearly, all this becomes less important when people can get a decent return on their retirement savings. Still, these forces would operate at the margin.)

After a generation or more of social security, these cautionary tales would become rarer, so people could then focus more on the more immediate fact that kids are expensive to raise. It would take little more than a reduction in the number of people who worried about having enough kids to rely on in order for my story to play out over a long period of time.

Chip -- I think probably the huge thing we are forgetting to mention here is birth control. Before 1970 or so, and definitely before 1945, there was no widely available and effective means of birth control. If you had sex, you had babies. And people love to have sex, so...

Another thing to consider as I consider the issue is the availability of divorce. It's harder as a practical matter to take care of an ailing parent when that parent has divorced the other one, or remarried, or whatever.

A third thing is that I don't consider the United States to be particularly socialist. So I'm excluding it from my set of countries. You may disagree.

Here is an informative article explaining why the Russian population is declining:

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/russiapop.htm

"Russia's population peaked in the early 1990s (at the time of the end of the Soviet Union) with about 148 million people in the country. Today, Russia's population is approximately 143 million. The United States Census Bureau estimates that Russia's population will decline from the current 143 million to a mere 111 million by 2050, a loss of more than 30 million people and a decrease of more than 20%.

The primary causes of Russia's population decrease and loss of about 700,000 to 800,000 citizens each year are:* a high death rate (male alcoholism an important factor), * low birth rate, * high rate of abortions, * low level of immigration."

7M--All those things are relevant factors. It's even possible that the apparent effect of socialism is simply because socialist countries happen to have more heavily urban populations. I submit my "kids as retirement funds" hypothesis as a possible explanation for an independent effect of social-welfare states.

While there's no denying the societal importance of the pill, it's easy to overstate its demographic importance. AFAIK, every country that has emerged from poverty to prosperity has passed through a demographic transition in which birth rates fell relatively quickly and significantly. People may prefer the pill to other forms of contraception, but its clear they've used those other forms of contraception with reasonable effectiveness long before 1960.

It seems like a more optimistic country would tend to have more children and a more pessimistic country would tend to have fewer children. Russia seems like it might be a glass half empty kind of country.

Russia has a very high death rate of 15 deaths per 1000 people per year. This is far higher than the world's average death rate of just under 9. The death rate in the U.S. is 8 per 1000 and for the United Kingdom it's 10 per 1000. Alcohol-related deaths in Russia are very high and alcohol-related emergencies represent the bulk of emergency room visits in the country.With this high death rate, Russian life expectancy is low - the World Health Organization estimates the life expectancy of Russian men at 59 years while women's life expectancy is considerably better at 72 years. This difference is primarily a result of high rates of alcoholism among males.

Low Birth Rate

Understandably, due these high rates of alcoholism and economic hardship, women feel less than encouraged to have children in Russia.Russia's total fertility rate is low at 1.3 births per woman. This number represents the number of children each Russian woman has during her lifetime. A replacement total fertility rate to maintain a stable population is 2.1 births per woman. Obviously, with such a low total fertility rate Russian women are contributing to a declining population.

The birth rate in the country is also quite low; the crude birth rate is 10 births per 1000 people. The world average is just over 20 per 1000 and in the U.S. the rate is 14 per 1000.

Abortion

During the Soviet era, abortion was quite common and was utilized as a method of birth control. That technique remains common and quite popular today, keeping the country's birth rate exceptionally low. According to a Russian news source, there are more abortions than births in Russia.The online news source mosnews.com reported that in 2004 1.6 million women had abortions in Russia while 1.5 million gave birth. In 2003, the BBC reported that Russia had, "13 terminations for every 10 live births."

Immigration

Additionally, immigration into Russia is low - immigrants are primarily a trickle of ethnic Russians moving out of former republics (but now independent countries) of the Soviet Union. Brain drain and emigration from Russia to Western Europe and other parts of the world is high as native Russians seek to better their economic situation.Putin himself explored the issues surrounding the low birth rate during his speech, asking "What has prevented a young family, a young woman, from making this decision? The answers are obvious: low incomes, a lack of normal housing, doubts about the level of medical services and quality education. At times, there are doubts about the ability to provide enough food."

I'll believe that the economic problems facing individual Americans and the U.S. are the issues taken most seriously by individuals and the U.S. when both each--and each both!--act as if the problems are serious and get down to essential work in response. (Consider this an extension of Fen's Rule, if you like or if you must. Or both.)

There are plenty of countries much poorer than Russia with much higher birthrates. I don't buy the economic explanation, especially since much richer countries such as Japan and Germany also have very low birth rates.

The abortion stat is key. People are choosing not to have children. It's not because they can't afford them, but because they don't want to have them. And that's a Russian cultural problem.

I was surprised when one of my oldest high school friends came out. I went to his "wedding"(this state doesn't recognize homo-weddings). Had a great time, saw a tranny show that left a lot to be desired, artistically :-) (I didn't know that they even existed in this state). Great food, great decor... it's a stereotype for a reason. And danced with a lot of faghags at the club. (I hope they were hags).

The point is I am right of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Atilla the Hun, and this was my friend. If he wants to be a throat poker, a butt buddy, and a rump ranger, does that change him in any ay from before? No, he is still the guy I knew, he is still my friend. I don't want to have sex with him, so why would it bother me about who he sleeps with?

As far as homosexual displays in public places, if gays adhere to the standards of heterodoxic display, again, why should that bother me? Or my grandchildren? If the assless chaps, or the leather nun outfits come out then I have a problem.

But I have a problem with 14 and 15 year old girls wearing gym shorts so tight you can tell if she's natural, landing strip, or bald, with "juicy" written across her ass.

Look, the world is fucked up, and will eat you. Love each other, protect each other, but don't be stupid. There's little enough good in the world, don't try extinguish any small ember of God's goodness.

Yes I said God. Do you really think an omnipotent, omniscient, being, that created the Whole Shebang cares where you stick your dick? If you do makes me wonder which is smaller, yours or your idea of God.

PS. This does not ascribe to pedophiles, children are to be loved not sperm depositories for people who can't handle adult relationships. Any pedobears caught may be executed summarily, with out trial, and the executioner exempt from paying taxes for that year.

Anyway, back to homo-relations. The population of western civilization is in decline. not just in Russia, but world wide. Even here in America.

Now here's a secret the left doesn't want you to know. There is a finite limit to what a population can drop to before it's civilization becomes unsustainable. (thank you Rachel Carlson).

One of the lefts fondest dreams is to have Earth return to an agrarian world society. Some even prefer humans totally gone (I think those people should show the strength of their convictions and off themselves but they never do).

This is one way to achieve that dream. There is one drawback to that though.

Sub-saharan Africa, and the middle east is procreatin' the shit outta their resources. And when ol' whiteys' gone they'll just move right in. Only it won't be like we just replaced everyone with pod people. These guys are the genetic losers in the crap shot of life. They can't farm, they can't fight, they can't invent, they do one thing and that one well to be sure, and that's have kids.

So Russia is trying to legislate an expanding population by frowning on homosexuality. Most of Europe (all of Europe?) is importing populations, but from the aforementioned sub-sahara, and mid-east. You can see how well that's working out. America is doing the same with latino's. We're in slightly better shape than Europe, we're holding steady.

There is one GIANT monkey wrench not accounted for, that I have been warning about for a decade now for just this reason.

China. China does not cherish female children. The horror stories of infanticide abound.(much like the abortion issue, but not today). So...When the over 2 million strong Red Chinese Army gets a furlough for the weekend, and the boys are horny, where are they gonna go?

When that army heads out, its gonna go south. China will absorb all those little asian countries without a burp. Then turn north. And the dragon and the bear will duke it out for the rights of that sweet poontang. The winner will turn west, the last place to find pussay on the continent.

The women in the mid-east will long for the days of sharia, and Islam, after a conquering horde of mongols or huns, thunders outof the east. Rape will evolve into a fine art in that scenario.

Ps. My money's on the Chinese.

Pps. On a lighter note, my cat is currently sleeping on my keyboard making it difficult to type. She is a cutie though.

Russia and Lithuania have the world's highest suicide rates, nearly doubling the suicide rate of the country with the 3rd highest suicide rate. It is not surprising that a country with a very low rate of creating and protecting babies also has an extremely high suicide rate.

It would be interesting to understand the impact that living under a brutal lefty dictatorship for 80 years had on on the long term psychological health of the Russian people.

In the USA, there are very strong disincentives for men to have kids. The divorce rate is very high, either spouse can end the marriage unilaterally. Once the marriage ends in divorce, there is a high probability that the mother will get the kids, the father will be paying a large chunk of his income in child support, and the father will have relatively little access to his children or control over the way his children are raised.

This is a heart breaking and frustrating situation for the father. More and more men will choose to avoid this heart break, frustration, and financial burden and not have children.

This is true. But it wasn't always true about being Russian. Populations diminish in modern societies for several reasons, especially economic ones. Wealth permits a focus on fewer children, where striving is associated with fecundity.

The key is hope in and for the future.And socialism effectively removes that.

Everywhere it takes over, people quit having babies. Not totally, but the nation effectively dwindles, wastes away. Socialism breeds nihilism, it is a death cult. It worships and promotes death.

Hence our coming national death panels. No prostate cancer screening for you.

I would suggest demographic analyis is quite good for highlighting problems in the future--look at population pyramids, extend those into the future and see what your population looks like in 20 or 30 years--demography is only a tool that policy makers should pay attention to (or to which policy makers should pay attention).

Pogo--re psa sceening for prostate cancer--opponents of screening suggest it leads to excess costs--In fact, I suggest that psa testing, with admittedly a lot of false positves lead to a biopsy--not a lot of fun, but it is the bioposy that results in positive diagnosis.

I could cite my personal experience, but anecdotal evidence is irrelevant except for NPR and congressional committees.

The government uses a calculation to decide whether certain tests are "worth it.". Those equations are dependent on one key factor: spending.

To the government, it is not worth it to find a few prostate cancers in older men (who, notably, are net consumers rather than producers). The vast majority of abnormal PSAs are benign, and there is risk in finding its origin.

The key question is "Worth it to whom?"

To the guy who is treated for cancer and survives, it was worth it. But to Medicare, you are not worth it.

Pogo--exactly--there was a bit of wisdom in the death panels meme. For the govt is is about spending and that is the sole factor--Oregon went down this road 15 years ago when the created a list of conditions and red lined the things they would cover--then the horror stories started for those with conditions below the red line.